Player swears at an opponent verbal abuse only

[GraemeS]

For the second time in a row, you are misquoting my post, Graeme.
I know of a number of referees who choose not to take action in response to O/I/A language (including some Refchat contributors) and I know others who are frightened to do so because more senior colleagues locally choose to ignore it.
On occasions when I sent off, the language included words which should not be shouted in public. I always used an early opportunity to remind re language usage by players/coaches, irrespective of venue/who was present.
I never sent off for shouts in frustration, only for incidents where a loud shout using inappropriate language to another person occurred.
Whether or not the person being addressed was offended is to my mind immaterial.
Law 12 is clear, but this section is being largely ignored by many referees.

Which words are they then? The laws do not contain a list of words that cannot be shouted in public and what's more, they also do not even imply the existence of a list of words that cannot be shouted in public.

I'm not attempting to deliberately misquote you, but when you say two contradictory things, it's an easy trap to fall into. Your statement that you have "never sent off for shouts in frustration" in the post I'm now quoting is the first time you've made that assertion or made any reference to letting swearing go in a non offensive context. In two previous posts you've referred to hypothetical people who may hear "inappropriate language" and "I have sent off players in public parks, stadia, military establishments, whenever the language has become unacceptable" - neither of which discuss the actual on-field context of those words and both of which clearly suggest that you believe the words alone should be punished.

If that's not the case then we would seem to agree and move on....however you've come back and disagreed with me twice now, so I suspect we're not done yet...

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Which words are they then? The laws do not contain a list of words that cannot be shouted in public and what's more, they also do not even imply the existence of a list of words that cannot be shouted in public.

I'm not attempting to deliberately misquote you, but when you say two contradictory things, it's an easy trap to fall into. Your statement that you have "never sent off for shouts in frustration" in the post I'm now quoting is the first time you've made that assertion or made any reference to letting swearing go in a non offensive context. In two previous posts you've referred to hypothetical people who may hear "inappropriate language" and "I have sent off players in public parks, stadia, military establishments, whenever the language has become unacceptable" - neither of which discuss the actual on-field context of those words and both of which clearly suggest that you believe the words alone should be punished.

If that's not the case then we would seem to agree and move on....however you've come back and disagreed with me twice now, so I suspect we're not done yet...

You said I was using the presence of children as a deciding factor - not so
You stated that I was implying that a referee who fails to act is a frightened referee - not so.
The player who shouts (basically at himself/herself) in frustration at missing an open goal gets a word in passing from me, and nearly always apologises.
The player who uses language which would be deemed inappropriate elsewhere (office, shop, school, restaurant, etc) should be dealt with appropriately and that will often be a dismissal.
Example from last Sunday morning, local park game which I was walking past:
Player (from 40 metres away, and easily identified): "That's got to be a penalty, you blind f+++++g ****"
Referee looked round towards the offender, then back to the goal, having awarded a corner kick.
Same player: "Oi, I'm f+++++g talking to you, baldy"
No response, no subsequent word with the player or captain.
That's my point made.

 

[JamesL]

You said I was using the presence of children as a deciding factor - not so
You stated that I was implying that a referee who fails to act is a frightened referee - not so.
The player who shouts (basically at himself/herself) in frustration at missing an open goal gets a word in passing from me, and nearly always apologises.
The player who uses language which would be deemed inappropriate elsewhere (office, shop, school, restaurant, etc) should be dealt with appropriately and that will often be a dismissal.
Example from last Sunday morning, local park game which I was walking past:
Player (from 40 metres away, and easily identified): "That's got to be a penalty, you blind f+++++g ****"
Referee looked round towards the offender, then back to the goal, having awarded a corner kick.
Same player: "Oi, I'm f+++++g talking to you, baldy"
No response, no subsequent word with the player or captain.
That's my point made.

Okay, on the frustration point, so you have a word in passing... Then said player does it again 1 minute later. What happens now?

 

[GraemeS]

You said I was using the presence of children as a deciding factor - not so

"football is played in public in the great majority of cases, so language is heard by people in nearby homes and gardens, people walking nearby, parents with children, etc., people who do not wish to hear inappropriate language." - your post 34

You stated that I was implying that a referee who fails to act is a frightened referee - not so.

"I have sent off players in public parks, stadia, military establishments, whenever the language has become unacceptable despite an early warning from me, and hope current referees will not be frightened to do so." - your post 38

As I said, I didn't feel like I was deliberately misquoting you.... at the very least, I think you have to admit it's easy to see where I got my conclusions from?

The player who shouts (basically at himself/herself) in frustration at missing an open goal gets a word in passing from me, and nearly always apologises.
The player who uses language which would be deemed inappropriate elsewhere (office, shop, school, restaurant, etc) should be dealt with appropriately and that will often be a dismissal.
Example from last Sunday morning, local park game which I was walking past:
Player (from 40 metres away, and easily identified): "That's got to be a penalty, you blind f+++++g ****"
Referee looked round towards the offender, then back to the goal, having awarded a corner kick.
Same player: "Oi, I'm f+++++g talking to you, baldy"
No response, no subsequent word with the player or captain.
That's my point made.

The example you outline in this quoted section is of course a missed red card and should have been punished. But again, you're moving the goalposts - the direct and offensive abuse you've described being directed loud and directly at a referee is very different from what you've said 2 lines earlier and what you've tried to justify being red-card worthy at other points!

If the player in your first scenario refuses to apologise or does the same thing again 2 minutes later - are you sending off for that? As I've consistently maintained throughout this thread: you're entitled to be offended personally by that, but if you happen to not find it personally offensive, you're not entitled to imagine a range of hypothetical sensitive souls and send off on their behalf.

Similarly, there is nothing in the law that allows a dismissal simply for "language which would be deemed inappropriate elsewhere" unless it also fits the guidelines of Offensive/Insulting/Abusive. "Foul language" left the laws over a decade ago and is no longer a sufficient justification on it's own for a dismissal.

 

[newref]

This discussion has been had more than any other subject (Ok maybe not as many times as hand ball or maybe VAR in recent times).

You can do anything from ignore to send the player off. The words used is only a small part of it. So you have given us only a small picture. How loud, how aggressive, the atmosphere of the game, the events leading up, the event it lead it to, the level and age group, the area (yes the area, town, country)... And many more factors considered as context.

I Wouldn't recommend ignoring, at the very least it's a quiet word on the run.

If you do decide to take action, i.e give a yellow card. Would it be an IDFK to the opposing team regardless of which team had the ball? Also when should play be stopped and from where should play be restarted?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

"football is played in public in the great majority of cases, so language is heard by people in nearby homes and gardens, people walking nearby, parents with children, etc., people who do not wish to hear inappropriate language." - your post 34


"I have sent off players in public parks, stadia, military establishments, whenever the language has become unacceptable despite an early warning from me, and hope current referees will not be frightened to do so." - your post 38

As I said, I didn't feel like I was deliberately misquoting you.... at the very least, I think you have to admit it's easy to see where I got my conclusions from?


The example you outline in this quoted section is of course a missed red card and should have been punished. But again, you're moving the goalposts - the direct and offensive abuse you've described being directed loud and directly at a referee is very different from what you've said 2 lines earlier and what you've tried to justify being red-card worthy at other points!

If the player in your first scenario refuses to apologise or does the same thing again 2 minutes later - are you sending off for that? As I've consistently maintained throughout this thread: you're entitled to be offended personally by that, but if you happen to not find it personally offensive, you're not entitled to imagine a range of hypothetical sensitive souls and send off on their behalf.

Similarly, there is nothing in the law that allows a dismissal simply for "language which would be deemed inappropriate elsewhere" unless it also fits the guidelines of Offensive/Insulting/Abusive. "Foul language" left the laws over a decade ago and is no longer a sufficient justification on it's own for a dismissal.

When "Foul or Abusive" was replaced by "Offensive, Insulting and/or Abusive" there were a number of debates about what constituted O/I/A.
It was impossible for The FA to publish a list of banned words, as context and local usage vary so much, so when teaching new referees I tend to use "Inappropriate" to cover all three headings, then give examples of each.
To answer your question about the player missing another open goal a few minutes later, I would delay the goal kick whilst making it obvious s/he is now in the last chance saloon regarding the use of such language, "Anything further like that . . . "
My comparison with language use outside of football dictates my approach to acceptability - if the player were to use the same words in another public place, would those words be acceptable? If not, they are likely to be O/I/A.
This is all a question of degree of acceptability, which as Peter Grove said has shifted in some areas (television drama being a good example) over time - my concern is that failure by referees to stem the tide will worsen the working environment for officials, and the recruitment of officials.
We lose a lot of referees each year because of the abuse they receive - only by addressing the issue ourselves can we help to address that.

 

[JamesL]

If you do decide to take action, i.e give a yellow card. Would it be an IDFK to the opposing team regardless of which team had the ball? Also when should play be stopped and from where should play be restarted?

All verbal offences are indirect.
All, barring a very few number of cases, free kicks are taken from the position of the offence.

 

[JamesL]

When "Foul or Abusive" was replaced by "Offensive, Insulting and/or Abusive" there were a number of debates about what constituted O/I/A.
It was impossible for The FA to publish a list of banned words, as context and local usage vary so much, so when teaching new referees I tend to use "Inappropriate" to cover all three headings, then give examples of each.
To answer your question about the player missing another open goal a few minutes later, I would delay the goal kick whilst making it obvious s/he is now in the last chance saloon regarding the use of such language, "Anything further like that . . . "
My comparison with language use outside of football dictates my approach to acceptability - if the player were to use the same words in another public place, would those words be acceptable? If not, they are likely to be O/I/A.
This is all a question of degree of acceptability, which as Peter Grove said has shifted in some areas (television drama being a good example) over time - my concern is that failure by referees to stem the tide will worsen the working environment for officials, and the recruitment of officials.
We lose a lot of referees each year because of the abuse they receive - only by addressing the issue ourselves can we help to address that.

So you've had a word in passing. Now you've publicly admonished him. A 3rd time in 3 minutes... Now what?
Surely you see where I am going? He has either committed o/i/a language and is off OR he is committing another offence and you are taking a different approach. Its not a strike rule, it either is or it isn't.

 

[newref]

All verbal offences are indirect.
All, barring a very few number of cases, free kicks are taken from the position of the offence.

Okay, whilst the ball is IN PLAY - you see two players from opposing teams swearing at each other. You stop play immediately to calm the situation. Now after both players have calmed down, how is play restarted? From where should play be restarted? And most importantly who gets the ball as players from both teams were at it.

 

[GraemeS]

When "Foul or Abusive" was replaced by "Offensive, Insulting and/or Abusive" there were a number of debates about what constituted O/I/A.
It was impossible for The FA to publish a list of banned words, as context and local usage vary so much, so when teaching new referees I tend to use "Inappropriate" to cover all three headings, then give examples of each.
To answer your question about the player missing another open goal a few minutes later, I would delay the goal kick whilst making it obvious s/he is now in the last chance saloon regarding the use of such language, "Anything further like that . . . "
My comparison with language use outside of football dictates my approach to acceptability - if the player were to use the same words in another public place, would those words be acceptable? If not, they are likely to be O/I/A.
This is all a question of degree of acceptability, which as Peter Grove said has shifted in some areas (television drama being a good example) over time - my concern is that failure by referees to stem the tide will worsen the working environment for officials, and the recruitment of officials.
We lose a lot of referees each year because of the abuse they receive - only by addressing the issue ourselves can we help to address that.

Moving goalposts again. "Abuse" should be punished and the failure to do so is a problem, no one is disagreeing with you on that.

But that's a different problem to what you keep trying to justify a punishment for. Swearing at themselves in frustration is not abuse. Using swear words as part of talking to a teammate is not abuse. Both of those things are not necessarily appropriate in the workplace etc, but also do not meet the definition of OFFINABUS. There is a chasm in between those two things and pretending that anything in that chasm becomes OFFINABUS because someone somewhere might be offended by it, or because it's repeated 3 times is not supported in law.

 

[JamesL]

Okay, whilst the ball is IN PLAY - you see two players from opposing teams swearing at each other. You stop play immediately to calm the situation. Now after both players have calmed down, how is play restarted? From where should play be restarted? And most importantly who gets the ball as players from both teams were at it.

You have to decide who committed the offence first. IFK to their opposition from the position of their offence. Red card each I presume.
If, by some freak occurrence, they committed an offence at exactly the same millisecond, the IFK I think would be awarded in accordance with severity in terms of tactical impact etc etc.

I would. Point out, si ce you emphasised the in play, that if the ball is out of play, then the restart is in accordance with the ball out of play.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Moving goalposts again. "Abuse" should be punished and the failure to do so is a problem, no one is disagreeing with you on that.

But that's a different problem to what you keep trying to justify a punishment for. Swearing at themselves in frustration is not abuse. Using swear words as part of talking to a teammate is not abuse. Both of those things are not necessarily appropriate in the workplace etc, but also do not meet the definition of OFFINABUS. There is a chasm in between those two things and pretending that anything in that chasm becomes OFFINABUS because someone somewhere might be offended by it, or because it's repeated 3 times is not supported in law.

We agree to disagree You accept players shouting the F-word during a game, I think it's unnecessary and offensive.

 

[GraemeS]

We agree to disagree You accept players shouting the F-word during a game, I think it's unnecessary and offensive.

That's all you had to say!

If you find any use of the f-word genuinely offensive then I absolutely support a dismissal for it. But up until this point you've not been saying that - you've been calling it inappropriate, you've been discussing if it would be accepted in the workplace, you've been going on about what hypothetical families in adjacent houses might think. All of that is irrelevant and doesn't even factor into justifying a red card.

But if you hear it and you find it offensive, then it meets the criteria for OFFINABUS.

 

[JamesL]

That's all you had to say!

If you find any use of the f-word genuinely offensive then I absolutely support a dismissal for it. But up until this point you've not been saying that - you've been calling it inappropriate, you've been discussing if it would be accepted in the workplace, you've been going on about what hypothetical families in adjacent houses might think. All of that is irrelevant and doesn't even factor into justifying a red card.

But if you hear it and you find it offensive, then it meets the criteria for OFFINABUS.

I would add though, if you are genuinely offended why are you giving warnings before actually dismissing?
Hkw do you then set a bar for what gets a warning and what doesn't?

 

[one]

I would add though, if you are genuinely offended why are you giving warnings before actually dismissing?
Hkw do you then set a bar for what gets a warning and what doesn't?

Agree. To add, once you say it's offensive and you have mentioned more than once "the law is clear" then you have no option but to send off everytime you hear it shouted, no matter what the context.